November 2013 Binghamton Review

BINGHAMTONREVIEW

HOW TO AVOID GETTING OPPRESSED BY HETEROSEXUAL WHITE MALES!

ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL! EXCEPT MEN. THEY’RE ASSHOLES.WHY OBAMA IS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT IN UNITED STATES HISTORY

AND, OF COURSE, WHY CAPITALISM IS SUPER EVIL

NOVEMBER 2013TRUTH AND TWO STAPLES

INSIDE:FEMINIST APPROVED DATING!

TIPS FOR YOUR AVERAGE PROLETARIAT!

Just messing with you, we’re the same right-wing bastards we’ve always been!

Happy

Halloween!

We hope you liked our costume!

Binghamton ReviewTRUTH AND TWO STAPLES NOVEMBER 2013

4 BINGHAMTON REVIEW NOVEMBER 2013

Binghamton Review FOUNDED 1987 • HALOWEEN EDITION • NOVEMBER 2013

P.O. BOX 6000BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000

[email protected]

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFDaniel Milyavsky

Managing EditorSamuel P. Bondy

Layout EditorWilliam Schneider

TreasurerSean Glendon

Copy Desk ChiefAmanda Harbour

Editor EmeritusJacob Hayutin

Associate EditorLawrence Gerchikov

ContributorsJack Russo, Christopher

Medrano, Ross Marchand, Josh May, Samson Audino, Aditi Roy

Patriarchs of the ReviewLouis W. Leonini

Adam Shamah

Friends of the ReviewDr. Aldo S. BernardoThe Leonini Family

Mr. Bob Soltis WA2VCSThe Shamah Family

The Grynheim FamilyThe Menje FamilyThe Leeds Family

The Lombardi Family

Binghamton Review is printed by Our Press in Chenango Bridge, NY. We provide the truth; they

provide the staples.

Contents

From the Editor

8 What Students Think of a Smoking Ban by Anonymous Commenters9 The Decline of the Campus Left at Binghamton: The Role that the Review Played in the Struggle by Daniel Milyavsky11 What Happened to the Napkin Dispsensers? by Samson Audino12 Capitalism Needs to be Added to the Menu at Sodexo by Josh May13 No Tear Drops, No Problems by Guest Contributor Ross Marchand14 Democracy is a Myth by The Wolf15 The FDA, A Drug Company, And One Patient’s Life by Christopher Medrano17 Four Lies about Obamacare by Jake Hayutin18 Ted Cruz Screwed Up by Sean Glendon19 Making a Difference in Our Community by Aditi Roy20 Flashback to 2006: Grey Skies, Binghamton Lies by Adam Smith 22 This Part of Dodd-Frank Actually Kills People by Ross Marchand

Departments:5 EDITORIAL6 CAMPUS PRESSWATCH7 WHAT YOU MISSED

5binghamtonreview.com

Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run periodical of conservative thought at Binghamton University. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free exchange of ideas and offer an alternative viewpoint not normally found on our predominately liberal campus. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness that dominates this university. We stand against tyranny in all its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of Western civilization. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.

Our Mission

EDITORIAL From the Editor

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK!Direct letters to [email protected]

Greetings, my Dear Readers. Happy Halloween! I hope that this issue of the Review finds you in good spirits. If your

spirits are lousy, then for a few fleeting moments you can forget about your miserable and pathetic life, and laugh at our jokes and wonder in awe at our tremendous insight. Which is in color this issue!

I was at a party the other night, and within a five minute span two people approached me to compliment me on the Review’s first Fall 2013 issue. One of them was someone I knew, but the other person was a girl who recognized me from the photo of me in the inside flap, and went out of her way to tell me that despite being a hardcore liberal and a Pipe Dream columnist, she admired the quality of the Review. Now that’s something to be proud about!

Some of you who are reading this may be wondering: Why the hell do the editors of the Review keep going on and on about how great they are? I’m not quite sure about what the answer to this question is myself, but I’ll try my best.

First of all, the Review is very self-aware, and we are proud of the fact that we are the only publication on campus with consistently quality, entertaining, and insightful writing. (Which is basically saying that we think we’re the best because we’re the best. I’m not a philosophy

major, so please excuse this bit of circular logic.)

Secondly, we are a conservative magazine (well, we’re really all libertarians now, but shhh!) and conservatives do think that some traditions are important. One of these traditions is for the tone of our writing to be pompous and arrogant, but also hilarious and penetrating. I’ve recently gone on a binge of reading our past issues (try it sometime! They’re all on our website, going back to 1987), and our sense of importance is one of the things that has remained constant in the Review throughout all these years.

The Campus Left is all but gone, but we’re still here.

With Love and Pride,Dan Milyavsky B


options do we halve?

Yeah. I guess he’s saying that you have to watch out for kittens, because they can be violent and...give you an anal probe? Look Elijah, if you want to do hallucinogenic drugs that’s your business, and I personally believe it should be legal for you to do so, but you might want to hold off on writing any more articles while under the influence…

Warm up to technology, one app at a timeBy Jake Lewis, in Pipe Dream

“Grindr is the granddaddy of all current dating apps. And it’s gay! Grindr was released way back in 2009 when we were so much more closed off from the world of technology, and meeting up with someone you met through your phone for sex was weird.”

Wait, meeting up with some you met through your phone for sex is normal now? I guess things have changed rapidly in the past four years indeed…

So you can totally use this app to get drunk with someone you message, which could work to your romantic and/or sexual advantage.

That sounds pretty close to date rape….I thought Pipe Dream was supposed to be liberal about this sort of thing! What’s good? B

Campus presswatCh Written by our Editor in Chief

EDITOR’S NOTE: First off, I’d like to attribute all the articles I Press Watched in the last issue to Pipe Dream. A member of PD’s staff approached me about this, and I gladly give attribution. Furthermore, the fact that all the articles I press watched were from PD was not because the other publications Binghamton has to offer (Prospect and Free Press? I guess? I think there’s some Asian one? Who knows?) are lacking in awfulness, but rather because I simply didn’t have them in front of me at the time. This time I will make sure to diversify! I have to note, with a great degree of sadness, that Pipe Dream’s opinion articles seem to be getting less stupid. That it why I had to Press Watch five of them last time. Usually two articles is more than enough to find plenty of stupid things to fill up this space with, but not recently :( Lastly, if you’re on the staff of another paper and are reading this, don’t get too offended. It’s my job to take your writing out of context and portray it as worthless trash, it’s not personal!My comments are in boldQuotes are in italics

All in One, Input One?By Randy Singh, in Prospect

“In this day and age, it’s hard being a video gamer. The late hours, the cost, the instant ramen binges…”

Huh? I can think of nothing easier than sitting around on your ass all day and playing video games. I’m not denigrating this activity, but to call it difficult is quite a stretch.

“This article is about the upcoming release of the Playstation 4 and the Xbox One...I’ve spent what, some thousands of dollars in games, DLC’s, Live subscriptions, and of course the consoles themselves themselves…And now we go back to why I’m spiraling into a depression.”

Is it because you’re spending about a quarter of your tuition on video games, and untold hours of your time with your eyes plastered to the TV?

“Xbox One is a water cooler...get a PS4.”

Oh, it’s actually because…the new Xbox system isn’t all that great. Well, I wish you the best of luck in stopping your depression spiral.

Robot Alien Cyborg Monkey BabyElijah Alsdorf, in Free Press

Okay, I’m just going to start off by saying that I have no fucking idea what the hell this is supposed to be. I’m just going to quote it, and you can decide for yourself. This is what happens when you read campus publications that aren’t the Binghamton Review.

Racmb: not well I am afraid you see, the thing is tiers of kittens make them quite and remarkably violant. This means when they micks with the containers it may want to get married to you then divorce you leavin you with nothing but our anal probe. Old man: it has many utilitiez and it can pitch me a tent if I need it too. So no worries, what other


WHAT YOU MISSED

*We’ve redecorated our office door! Come down to our office, BW05 in the basement of New Union, to check it out! We also al-ways have our newest issue sitting outside just waiting for you to pick it up. (Well, since you’re already reading this, I guess that’s not an issue for you. No pun intended. Get it? Because this is the newest issue? Sorry, I’m usually funnier). Or come by and slip a note under our door, if for whatever reason you don’t feel like sending us an

email.

*Oh, and that reminds me. Not to be a dick, but aside from Pipe Dream, we’re the only campus publication that actually has an

office.

*Obamacare is already an epic di-saster. They had three years and $600 million to construct a work-ing website, and they couldn’t do so. Obama said that this was just a “glitch,” but this is a bit more than a glitch – the damn thing DOESN’T WORK. People have spent hours on it trying to sign

up for health insurance, and to no avail. However, the information that they did put in isn’t even guar-anteed to be private, and can be used for identity theft! It reminds me of an Onion video with the headline: “Sony Releases Stupid Piece of Shit That Doesn’t Fuck-ing Work.” Except if Sony ever re-leased any product this atrocious, they’d be bankrupt pretty soon.

*The government “shutdown” is over and the debt ceiling has been raised. The Republicans ended up completely caving, just like I pre-dicted. Unfortunately, I predicted it in a Facebook status, and not in last month’s edition of the Re-view, but that still counts, right? Anyway, as a result of their stupid-ity in refusing to fund the govern-ment, the Republicans actually distracted people from the awful roll out of Obamacare, and even made it a little bit more popular. And they hurt the public percep-tion of them, and their chances at keeping the House or taking the Senate in 2014. Ted Cruz really screwed up here, while Rand Paul actually stayed quiet and realized that this whole shutdown thing was a mistake. ONLY Rand Paul 2016. Nobody else will suffice.

America deserves you, Rand.

*Lou Reed, the rock artist who was the leader of the band The Velvet Underground, has died. I’ve never listened to his music, but this Roll-ing Stone review of their music in

1969 shows you how much times have changed. “[The Velvet Un-derground are a] bunch of junk-iefaggot-sadomasochist-speed-freaks who roared their anger and their pain in storms of screaming feedback and words spat out like strings of epithets.” And appar-ently this one critic liked the band!

*A recent article in The New York-er highlighted the case of a couple in the small town of Tenaha, Tex-as. The couple was pulled over, and police told them that they fit the profile of drug couriers, since they were driving from Houston. They had children in the car, who the police claimed were being used as decoys. The police searched the innocent couple’s car, and didn’t find any drugs, but they did find some cash. They said that the cou-ple could either sign over the cash to the police department, or be ar-rested and have their children tak-en in by Child Protective Services. This is a practice called civil asset forfeiture, and it is a disgusting abuse of police power that needs

to end.

*Looks like Bill DeBlasio is going to be the next Mayor of New York City...God help those of us who are city dwellers. B

Written by our Editor in Chief


The Smoking Ban On Campus

Editor’s Note: This would usually go in Press Watch, but the three online commenters for this Pipe Dream article did such a fantastic job dissecting this article, which calls for Stasi-like enforcement of the 20 feet from a building smoking rule, that we’ll just reprint what they wrote. Good job, commenters!

The Article:

Smoking rules should be more strictly enforcedBy Rebecca Klar, Pipe Dream

“Is it too much for me to ask to be able to walk out of my dorm building without having to hold my breath? I know smoking is legal. Everyone has his or her own right to smoke. But let’s be real: For us nonsmokers, it’s just a huge inconvenience...Right now, the rule mandates that those who smoke must do so 25 feet away from every building on campus…

While cigarette smoke irritates me the most. I don’t have to breathe in mucky air from those smoking hookah, and most people have the decency to smoke pot in the woods away from everyone else. So pretty much that just leaves me to disdain the cigarette smokers of CIW...

I don’t really feel bad at all enforcing a rule in which students and faculty are not allowed to smoke in front of buildings, and have to go out of their way to smoke. If it becomes such a big inconvenience, then maybe they should just quit smoking.”

The Comments:

Wolf: The interesting thing about the argument presented here is that while everyone is mad that smokers aren’t 25 feet from the building, no one

actually knows WHERE THAT IS. If I asked the author of this article or anyone else to point out where 25 feet from the building is without simultaneously standing too close to another building (especially in CIW, where buildings are incredibly close together), no one can do it. Also, let’s not forget the other parts of this law: smoking is also only to be done 25 feet away from air intake vents and trash cans. Good luck with your tape measure drawing out all the places I can smoke. Secondhand smoke only comes into play if you choose to stand next to a person as they smoke; the occasional whiff caught leaving your dorm is not going to do anything and doesn’t smell any worse than the hallways of our dorm buildings often do. Of course you don’t have a problem inconveniencing smokers- you aren’t one! The insane stigma thrown onto smokers and cigarettes from the time we are young with ads that literally tell flat-out lies (for example, cigarettes contain rat poison- no, they contain a chemical found in some rat poisons that is also found in food preservatives) is incredible. Overeating often is highly detrimental to a person’s health, but Sodexo isn’t going to make people walk off-campus in the freezing cold to eat more than the daily recommended portion. If you’re annoyed by someone playing loud music during normal day hours, you can’t throw their stereo into the street. Sometimes, its just not always about you.

Leonhard Euler: I agree. The author can hold her breath for 3 seconds. If not, maybe she should schedule an appointment with a Pulmonologist. She probably blacks out on weekends but can’t bear to inhale some second hand smoke because according to this society, thats much more unhealthy. Yea, right. Give me a break....

jarober: Here’s a newsflash for you: I would much, much, much rather sit next to a smoker than someone like you. Why? The smoker is highly unlikely to try to control every aspect of my life. You, on the other hand? Your desire to “help” me with more and more controls will never, ever end. Please go live far away from other people; you are the very definition of a sociopath. B

Student Opinions on Campus Smoking Ban


The Decline of The Campus Left at Binghamton

The Decline of the campus left at binghamton

It used to be much worse. In the 90’s, leftist activists here at Binghamton were relentless in

their activism in favor of a “diversity requirement,” and they finally got one. But the requirement merely required students to take a class on a culture other than American culture, so a class on Classical Greece qualified. The leftists were unhappy with this. They didn’t want students at Binghamton to have a well-rounded education - they wanted them to be indoctrinated into thinking that the only important narrative in the history of the world is the oppression by straight white males of everyone else. So, they occupied buildings, had massive protests, in a bid to change the requirement so that students have to learn about the “nature of oppression” in theory, and about the actual oppression of certain “underrepresented minorities.” The real driving force behind this ideology is the belief that America, and Western culture itself, are evil.

The irony, of course, is that this obsession with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. is a distinctly Western phenomenon. Only in the West will you find people so obsessed with these things.

The new, more totalitarian version of the diversity requirement was defeated after it was vetoed by a vote of the faculty. While most of the newer professors were very much in favor of it, the older ones,

including those who were members of the Old Left, were more skeptical. Even professors who sympathized with socialism didn’t think that students should have it drilled into their heads that white males were evil. I am, of course, proud to say that the Binghamton Review was staunchly against the new diversity requirement and made sure it was changed.

The second story I’d like to tell concerns that of NYPIRG. NYPIRG, or the New York Public Interest Research Group, is a lobbying organization that advocates for a variety of liberal causes, such as banning fracking, campaign finance reform, etc. This is all fine. We at the Review are firm believers in the First Amendment, and even if we disagree with NYPIRG’s position on issues, it

has the right to advocate on behalf of them. The problem with NYPIRG has nothing to do with its political views, but rather was the way it was funded, and what it did with the money.

At its peak, NYPIRG at Binghamton was receiving about $115,000 in money from the SA EVERY SINGLE YEAR. This money came from student activity fees that all of us are obligated to pay each year. Most student groups have budgets that are only a couple hundred dollars. And the worst part is, NYPIRG didn’t actually use this money to conduct activism on campus. In fact, the vast majority of it was just transferred to NYPIRG Central in Albany to pay NYPIRG staffers there, which doesn’t benefit Binghamton at all.

Written by Daniel Milyavsky

And the role of the Binghamton Reviewin that struggle, from 1987 to today


This wasn’t a Right vs. Left issue, and our former Editor-In-Chief Adam Shamah led the effort to defund NYPIRG about five years ago. It happened gradually, but NYPIRG was eventually stripped of its entire budget, and as a result, the Student Association was able to give more money to almost every single student group that asked for a budget increase. NYPIRG does have a $1,000 budget now, but this pales in comparison to the six figure budget it used to command.

The final episode I have to tell was covered in our inaugural issue, in 1987. We used to have a campus pub back then, but the President of the SA decided to ban Coors Lite from the pub, because Coors had given money to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank. Needless to say, even non-political students were not happy to have lefties controlling their lives in this way. In a way, we’re in an even worse position now, since we don’t have a campus pub at all, but that’s besides the point (thanks for getting rid of it, Sodexo!).

The Review covered every single one of these events and fought for justice and fairness. We did not fight to impose our vision on the students, but rather to allow the students to make their own decisions about what classes they take, where their money goes and what beer they drink. The leftists want to control your life. The Binghamton Review has been quite successful at fighting this, here at Binghamton. Today, the activist Left is a mere remnant of what it used to be, and is pretty quiet. The Review, on the other hand, is alive and kicking.

To be honest, I kind of wish there was a lefty publication for us to fight against. Unlike a lot of other colleges, the administration here is relatively non-

political and doesn’t discriminate against conservative or libertarian groups. This is, of course, the way it should be, but I don’t want those of us on the Right to grow complacent because of this lack of

A Brief History In CoversWe’ve been around since 1987, and things have changed.

This October 2003 issue (almost ten years ago exactly!) mentions leftist campus publications that no longer

exist.

This May 2009 issue proclaims the end of NYPIRG as we knew it.

In this May 2010 issue, the Review congratulates itself for a job well done

in reforming campus politics

In this December 1993 issue, the Re-view continues to struggle with the Left. A student protester holds a sign saying “No Free Speech for Fascists.”

The Decline of The Campus Left at Binghamtonleftist provocation. Things may be fine here, but out there in the real world leftist ideas about the expansive and all-reaching role of government are doing great harm. B


What Happened to the Napkin Dispensers?

What happened to the napkin dispensers?

Those students who are returning to Binghamton and using the dining halls have

definitely noticed that the napkin dispensers which were once on every table are now nowhere to be found. I have no clue what compelled Sodexo to remove them. The idea probably came from some self-important student environmental group who thinks they’re saving the world by moving some napkin dispensers, while proposing this plan from their MacBook Pro’s in their comfortably air-conditioned New Dickinson “flats.” But just like almost any “green” regulation, it ends up not doing much good for the environment, while inconveniencing students.

If a student group thought of this, they probably thought that if the napkins weren’t at every table, people would take a few as they get their cutleries, and they would always pull out the exact amount of napkins they would need for a given meal. I can tell you from personal experience that I’ll often sit down at the dining hall, and realize I forgot my napkins. I now have the choice to either waste time and grab some napkins, or be a filthy mess and start eating anyway.

Moreover, who’s to say they were being greedy napkin bastards when the napkins were at the table? If anything, people would take one or two napkins at a time when they were at the table, and not take any more than necessary. Now that the napkin dispensers are in one specific area, not only are people inconvenienced, but they usually take

a handful of napkins so they don’t have to leave their seat later on to get more. I’ve even seen students open up the dispensers from the top, and take large stacks for themselves. Not only is this is a major inconvenience, but it seems that students are taking more napkins than they were last year, which in case you forgot, was the entire damn point. And what do the students do with the extra, unused napkins that they grabbed because they didn’t want to have to get up again? They throw them out, when they could have just been left in the original napkin dispensers.

Maybe Sodexo thought of this, as a way to appease the increasingly pissed off student body. Instead of doing things that students would actually like, such as lowering prices ($10 for a few pieces of freaking fruit), they pretend to be “green” by inconveniencing everybody. Even if this “napkin commute” wasn’t Sodexo’s idea, it seems they had to have had this thought in order to go through with the plan.

If somebody disagrees with me and wants to explain how moving some napkins around can actually reduce napkin usage, I’d like to hear it. But for now, it seems that this only leads to more waste and inconvenience, and it sounds like the student body agrees with me. Recently, there’s been a petition to bring back the napkin dispensers that has been circulating in C4. Here’s to hoping that it succeeds. B

Written by Samson Audino

“Instead of doing things that students would actually like, such

as lowering prices ($10 for a few pieces of freaking fruit), they pretend to be “green” by inconveniencing everybody.”

? ? ?? ?


Capitalism Should Be Added to the Menu at Sodexo

Capitalism should be added to the menu at sodexo

It’s well-known that competition in a free market makes the world go round (or at least it’s well-

known if you read the Review). When a particular market enjoys a healthy level of capitalism, prices are kept low, while wages and quality are kept high. But this truth that most of us seem to hold to be self-evident, is lost on the University Dining Service.

Sodexo has a long record of incompetence and failure that seems only to have intensified over the last few years. The most ubiquitous complaint this year for returning students has been the removal of the napkin dispensers at every table in the dining halls. Ostensibly, this was a result of “theft” (and this despite the sizeable markup in meal plan prices to include a surcharge for predicted theft), but it has left students frustrated—and left me trying to maneuver around the morons who spend an inordinate amount of time at the napkin/silverware tables and slow everyone else down.

But the napkins are the least of the unexplained incidents. Some longer-standing policies are equally baffling. Why do most of the dining halls open at 8 AM on weekdays (a reasonable hour) and not until 11 on weekends? On my first Saturday morning as a freshman, hoping to get up early and start exploring my new home, I was bitterly disappointed to see the dining halls closed for several hours more. For those like me to whom breakfast is the most important meal of the day, this kind of deprivation puts a definite pall on the day. During the weekends that followed, I was forced to either

start my day much later and thus lose productivity, or buy food elsewhere and lose my even more limited personal spending money. Of all Sodexo’s problems, this seems to me the most fixable; extending operating hours by six hours a week will not break the bank—and if corporate is worried about reduced volume, understandable given the tendency of campus to clear out over weekends, then I urge it to try this policy for a trial period in at least one dining hall.

Breakfast is the one meal I truly enjoy at Hinman Dining Center, and I sincerely compliment the staff on the food; it’s a shame that this doesn’t pervade the overall corporate ethos. It seems as though “quality” stamps out at 11 AM (on weekdays, that is; it apparently takes weekends off). The amount of decent food recedes faster than Harvey Stenger’s hairline. The relative proportion of good to bad food produced from lunchtime on smacks of a Stalinesque quota system, as if the state had mandated a certain amount of charred hockey pucks and Italian cardboard, euphemistically disguised as “hamburgers” and “pizza,” respectively. And let’s not forget the other common complaint—that healthy food is priced higher than junk food.

All these problems and more can be easily solved by the introduction of competition into the campus food market. At the moment, the only non-dining hall choice available on campus is the over-crowded Einstein Brothers Bagels, hardly a diverse market. (he very building itself displays all the engineering and architectural

genius of a Harpur student, with its claustrophobic checkout lines and a sitting area with a square footage less than Joe Biden’s IQ. Clearly, a better alternative is needed. It would have been nice if the upcoming Marketplace (a succes-sor to the long-closed Food Court) in the new Union had remedied this problem. Instead, most of the options available will be Sodexo knock-off brands. The University could have made a half-serious effort to address dining concerns, such as including more independent eateries, as the food court did. Unfortunately, we are stuck in the same rut. At least there’s one bright side - for all the homesick fresh-men who wish they were back in high school, they can rest assured that their high school cafeteria will last at least another four years. B

Written by By Josh May

“The amount of decent food recedes faster than Harvey Stenger’s

hairline.”


No Tear Drops, No Problem

No tear drops, no problem

Most mornings are swell.

I’ll wake up, slip into my fuzzy loafers, and try to muster the initiative to cook myself some eggs. On an exceptionally rare sunrise, things won’t be nearly as peachy. I’ll hear about the death of a loved one, or maybe a friend. Now, most would be concerned with keeping themselves together emotionally. They might think of spent time with the deceased, and deal with the urge to break down into tears. When everyone is in close quarters and hears the news together, we see group hugs that resemble pre-game huddles.

But when I get this news, I have another worry altogether: appearing emotionally affected. Crying is a natural part of life for so many, but for a small subset of the population, the tears aren’t naturally a-flowin’. Sure, if my bone gets broken then the tear-ducts will have a field day. But in an emotionally trying situation, my brain just releases chemicals telling me to remain calm. Do I sadly reflect? Of course I do. Am I unhealthily keeping it tucked away? Not to my knowledge. Yet, there seems to be somewhat of an intolerance toward having an unemotional outward appearance. Some of this has to do with the “band together” mentality in the midst of tragedy. Michael Trimble, emeritus professor of behavioral neurology at University College London reports that in the infancy stage, “crying begins to serve interpersonal purposes: the search for comfort and pacification.”

Cross-country research, however, seems to show crying as an increasing function of individual autonomy. Looking at data from America, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, China and

Peru, Trimble concludes that tear-shedding goes hand-in-hand with a “less hierarchical...social-class structure,...which is perhaps a reflection of greater individual autonomy.” Here, what we’re seeing is a bit of a liberal paradox involving emotional display. The call for people to “open up” is a completely justifiable response to a very real problem. Yesterday’s culture just wasn’t as permissive about these sorts of things. I remember my great-grandfather for our fun nursing home interactions and for his fondness of Chicken McNuggets, but my mom tells me there was a whole other side to him. Back when she was a kid, her grandfather locked himself in the bathroom and turned on the faucet when he had to cry.

A better society is one where we take my great-grandfather by the hand and reassure him that it’s alright to express himself. If that’s the case, then we should also welcome those who aren’t eager to cry and vent. A problem arises due to a misunderstanding; we can never be too sure if someone is holding it in or if their brain chemistry is just different. The key lies inside of our grey bundles. Researchers at the University of Michigan Medical School show that the

observed trait of “resilience” occurs when the brain activates “natural painkillers.” For some, the experiences of a) getting snubbed at the bar; b) losing a job; or c) experiencing a death is considerably smoothed over by the release of opioids “especially in the amygdala.”

So, there you have it. Just as some will express themselves profusely as we knock down the wall of social hierarchy, others will have a neutral disposition. As a proud member of the “less affected” tribe, I do not ask for psychoanalysis or shrink appointments to evaluate my perceived under-reactions. I simply ask to be understood for who I am: reflective, but in the chillaxed sense. B

Written By Ross Marchand, Guest Contributor from the University of Maryland

“Crying is a natural part of life for so many, but for a small

subset of the population, the tears aren’t naturally a-flowin’.”


Democracy is a Myth

Democracy is a myth

IThe government is run by unelected bureaucrats, with some input from elected politicians. Just because

you get to vote for these politicians doesn’t mean you have a say in how the government is run. During the Democratic National Convention of 2012, a popular slogan was that “government is the one thing we all belong to.” But that’s not true. Government is the one thing that has power over us, while the vast majority of us have virtually no say in how it operates. Just because you vote every now and then for either a Democrat or a Republican doesn’t mean you actually have a voice about whether farm subsidies should be given out to gigantic agri-businesses, whether the NSA should collect all of our electronic data, whether drug users should be thrown in prison, whether the tax code should really be so complicated and inefficient, and so forth.

One of the most shameless aspects of the government shutdown fiasco is the closing of the national parks. It costs far more money to close them than to keep them open, but the National Park Service has deployed what basically amounts to SWAT teams to make sure that no American is allowed to enjoy our national treasurers. Even a stretch of highway that overlooks Mount Rushmore in South Dakota was blocked off, because God forbid Americans take pictures of it while the government is ostensibly shut down. On the first day of the shutdown, armed officers gathered around Old Faithful Geyser in Yellowstone, because looking at the geyser is deemed “recreating,” which is strictly forbidden during a shutdown. When foreign tourists were

seen photographing a herd of bison in Yellowstone, the a National Park Service ranger approached the tour guide and told him: “Sir, you are recreating,” and forced the group back into their bus.

Meanwhile, in Washington DC, there was a rally held in favor of legalizing the illegal immigrants. At the rally, Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the House Democrats, said she wanted to “thank the president for enabling us to gather here.” A Republican Congressman by the name of Mario Diaz-Balart was equally shameless, saying that he was grateful to the Obama administration for “allowing us to be here.” So not only is democracy a myth, but so is this whole government shutdown thing. King Barack gets to

decide who can gather where, and His Majesty has plenty of men with guns willing to enforce his bidding.

The reason for Obama’s behavior is that he wants to get ordinary citizens who might not otherwise care about a government shutdown to suddenly be concerned about it. He has polling data that tells him that Republicans get more blame for the shutdown than Democrats, so in order to gain a political advantage, he decides to punish innocent Americans and foreigners who only want to see some parks and monuments.

And what say do you, the average citizen, have in all this? None. None at all. Nothing that you did caused the government shutdown, but you must suffer for it. In a democracy, where it is believed that we have a government for the people, by the people, and of the people, the government—and the armed men who enforce its edicts by the threat of deadly force—can do anything it wants, because hey, after all, the government is us, right? B

Written by By The Wolf, Anonymous Contributer


The FDA, A Drug Company, And One Patient’s Life

The fda, a drug company, and one patient’s life

Andrea Sloan, a 45 year old Texas Lawyer, works with a nonprofit group where she

provides legal assistance for those who cannot otherw ise afford it. For seven years, she’s been battling stage three ovarian cancer, which has taken a severe toll on her life.

Now, in her time of need, Sloan is being denied the human compassion she has always given to others. While she has successfully gone through rigorous chemotherapies before, these debilitating treatments haven’t been able to eradicate the disease since its recent return. “I’ve had three rounds of chemotherapy, I’ve had a stem cell transplant, I’ve had two rounds of radiation, I’ve had five major surgeries, I have lost my hair twice. I have run the gamut of traditional therapy,” Sloan said.

Her physicians have concluded that her only hope of survival is a new drug produced by the pharmaceutical company BioMarin. Although, it hasn’t reached the market, PARP inhibitor BMN 673 is a promising medication for those suffering from genetic ovarian and breast cancer.

It is an efficient treatment that targets cancer cells without causing detrimental damage to the body, a beneficial component for those whose bone marrow cannot withstand the effects of further traditional treatments.

Of course, like most other things in this world, it is seemingly too good to be true. Unfortunately, the new drug hasn’t been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. A drug company must obtain approval from the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), a department that ensures safe and effective distribution of new medications. When a company submits a new drug application, it must provide evidence that the drug has been tested thoroughly for both safety and effectiveness.

Occasionally, patients meeting strict conditions are permitted “compassionate use,” which is the prescribing of a drug that isn’t yet approved by the FDA, when there are no other possible treatments for the patient, and the use of a risky medication literally means the difference between life and death. This must also be approved by the FDA, especially for those not involved in a clinical trial. This single patient access has been granted by the FDA to Sloan, but must also be approved by the pharmaceutical company involved. BioMarin refuses to grant Sloan the approval, since they haven’t processed their phase three trials. They claim that they are wary of prescribing the drug because they aren’t sure whether it could be hazardous to her health. Debra Charlesworth, a spokeswoman for BioMarin, has stated, “Giving experimental therapies outside of the clinical trial process slows down the drug development and delays the potential to deliver a treatment to thousands of patients.”

Here is where the politics of a money-driven industry veer away from its original purpose, which is to help the ill. Americans can sleep tight knowing that the pharmaceutical producers aren’t swayed by their ailing

Written By Christopher Medrano

“The last humane field in our society, founded on the precedent of man healing its fellow man and striving to discover better cures for

the future, has become another corporate empire, whose decisions know no rules and whose corruption knows no limits.”


The FDA, A Drug Company, And One Patient

patients, but by the almighty dollar. Rather than potentially saving this woman’s life, the company chooses to let her die to avoid delaying the launch of their new drug. While they claim that they are attempting to form a clinical trial to involve Sloan, they’ll be unable to medicate her for at least 40 days, while Sloan’s physicians insist that she receive the treatment within the next two weeks. Time is running out for this innocent citizen, and justice is dragging its feet. At the end of the day, it has been proven again that the field of healthcare has evolved into something that knows only profit and refuses to see patients as individuals, but rather customers.

This is a grave sign of what our generation has to face in the future. The last humane field in our society, founded on the precedent of man healing its fellow man and striving to discover better cures for the future, has become another corporate empire, whose decisions know no rules and whose corruption knows no limits. The day the FDA condones a corporation’s choice to allow a sick woman to die for the purpose of yielding profit a little sooner is the day medicine turns its back on the Hippocratic Oath.

Editor’s Response:

I don’t usually comment on my writers’ articles, but I think it’s important to do so here. First of all, the case of Andrea Sloan has a happy ending, at least for now. An anonymous pharmaceutical company working on a drug similar to the one BioMarin was working on has agreed to supply Sloan with the drug under the compassionate use exemption, so even if BioMarin’s actions here are to be condemned, this does not mean that they are representative of all drug companies, or the way in which a free market health care system would work. In fact, apparently BioMarin’s CEO has actually attacked Sloan personally, calling her a “spoiled petulant brat,”

which is certainly not something CEO’s of drug companies usually do.

Second of all, it’s important to discuss the problems inherent in the FDA. When it comes to its role in regulating drugs, there are two mistakes that the FDA can make. The first is that it approves a drug which has such severe side effects that they obscure any benefits. Such mistakes are very public and the people who make them would probably be fired. The second kind of mistake is if the FDA doesn’t approve or delays approving a drug with beneficial effects. Such a mistake

“If you’re a bureaucrat, it’s always in your interest to err on the side of caution and delay approving good drugs if there’s even the

slightest amount of doubt.”

wouldn’t receive a huge amount of press coverage, and the only people who would object to it are the patients that it would help, who may not have much longer to live, and the drug companies, who are just greedy capitalist entities anyway, right? So, bottom line, if you’re a bureaucrat, it’s always in your interest to err on the side of caution and delay approving good drugs if there’s even the slightest amount of doubt. This is obviously problematic, and ought to be reformed.B


Four Lies Exposed About the Affordable Care Act

Yes We Can… No You Can’t!

The Affordable Care Act is the largest and most controversial piece of legislation passed in my lifetime. As implementation continues to stumble on account of the inability of federal bureaucrats to accomplish even the simplest task (i.e. healthcare.gov), I think it is appropriate to reflect on why the majority of Americans and Congress supported it in the first place. The following are five foundational, false promises made by Obama while promoting the ACA.

1. The ACA is not a tax.

Yes it is! According to the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business vs. Kathleen Sebelius, there were two potential avenues through which the ACA could be interpreted as constitutional. The first, which utilized the “commerce clause,” grants Congress the power to regulate markets. This rational was rejected by the majority leaving only the second – the power to lay and collect taxes.

2. If you like your current insurance plan you can keep it.

No you can’t! The ACA officials project that employers will be paying $135 billion in fines to opt out of providing insurance under these new rules for their employees. Which means these companies project the burden of ACA to be significantly greater or else they would not submit to the fines. Moreover, as of now roughly 12% of employees will be forced into inferior plans, some of which will lose their

Medicaid benefits. Already hundreds of thousands have lost their plans particularly in New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania and California.

3. If you like your doctor, you can keep him or her.

No you can’t! The Obama administration has projected that Medicare part A (basic medical services and check-up for the elderly) will lose 15% profitability encouraging many doctors to retire early. So, although there will be no direct administrative rearrangement (so far as we know now) the unintended consequences may require you to find a new doctor. UnitedHealthcare alone has terminated contracts with over 2,100 doctors.

4. The ten-year cost will be less than $1 trillion.

No it won’t! Suffice it to say, after

the subprime mortgage crisis in 2006, I have little confidence in federal economic projections. The only people who saw that coming were elite private hedge fund managers who are now all much richer because of it. Regardless, new projections are between 1.3 and 1.9 trillion depending on how lucrative the new taxes and penalties are for those who opt out.

5. ObamaCare will not add a dime to the deficit.

Yes it will; many dimes in fact! The only way this promise has any hope is if $1.3 trillion dollars can be cut from Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). For the last seven years running Congress has overridden reductions in payments to Medicare physicians including an $80 billion annual cut to Medicare alone. There is no reason to believe the ACA will change this trend? B

Five Lies Exposed About the Affordable Care ActWritten By Jake Hayutin

President Obama Speaking at Binghamton University, Picture from npr.com


Ted Cruz Screwed Up

Ted Cruz Screwed up

I like Ted Cruz. Seriously. Any Libertarian presence within the Republican Party is cool with

me. However, Ted Cruz really struck out on this whole Obamacare issue. Obamacare can be described as nothing less than an absolute “mess” (to keep it politically correct for now), and this really should come as no surprise to anybody with even a smidgen of common sense. That’s why Ted Cruz should’ve kept silent on the issue. Well, not silent, but he shouldn’t have been willing to take the a large burden of the blame for shutting the government down and almost allowing the United States to default on its debt. I’m not saying that this was his fault. But the media outlets across the nation are. And let’s be honest, the Republicans lost the government shutdown battle. The Republican Party has reached an all-time low, at least according to Post-ABC surveys. Only 32% of responders have a favorable view of it, while 63% have an unfavorable

view (almost 40% have a strongly unfavorable view). On top of that, 53% of people are blaming the Republicans for the shutdown, with another 15% blaming both parties. In other words, 68% feel that the Republicans are at least partially responsible for this. The Republican Party discussion is for another time; this is about Ted Cruz, who also suffered in favorability polls. Shortly after his 21-hour September 24th speech about the Affordable Care Act, which happened to be the fourth longest speech in the history of the Senate, 29% of respondents to a HuffPost/YouVote poll approved of Cruz while 31% disapproved and 41% had no opinion. In the latest version of the same poll, Senator Cruz’s numbers have slipped substantially to 43% disapproval and 31% approval. While Ted Cruz does seem like a “F#%$ the Haters” type of guy, those numbers definitely won’t help his presidential aspirations. That slide probably has a lot to do with

the media attacking Cruz during the implementation stages of Obamacare. And here lies the problem: had he not made himself a spectacle, and had the shutdown been avoided, the media wouldn’t have been able to attack him, meaning they would’ve had to fill their programs with other coverage. They would’ve had to talk about the disastrous Obamacare website problems. They would’ve talked more about the irony of the phone line being 1-800-318-2596, and how the corresponding letters spell out 1-800-F1UCKYO. You’d know that the website cost enough to pay a technician $200 an hour… for 5,000 years. And it didn’t work, but I guess that’s what happens when you only take one bid. Sometimes, it’s easier to fix a problem by letting everyone realize how much of a problem it actually is. This was one of those cases in which that would’ve been extremely simple to do. At least Senator Cruz can smile knowing he isn’t Victor Cruz (even though both are playing for teams that have had horrific records in the recent past). B

Written by Sean Gleandon

“He shouldn’t have been willing to take the a large burden of the blame for

shutting the government down and almost allowing the United States to default on its debt.”


Making A Difference in our Community

Making A Difference in our Community

This past weekend was quite an eventful one here in Binghamton. The Making Strides Against Breast Cancer Walk was held on Saturday October 19th at Recreation Park and the 31st Annual C.H.O.W. Walk was held on October 20th right here on campus behind the East Gym.The American Cancer Society’s Making Strides Against Breast Cancer Walk raises money for patient services and research that could help end the battle against breast cancer. All the money raised on Saturday’s event will stay in the area to assist local patients and their families. The walk was a huge success; around 6000 walkers, 500 of which were survivors, participated and estimated $270,000 was raised by the 365 participating teams. The next day, hundreds of walkers showed their support at the

C.H.O.W. Walk to trample hunger in our community by making donations, pledges and bringing non-perishable food items for the Community Hunger Outreach Warehouse . The proceeds from the C.H.O.W. walk go directly to feeding needy families in the area, which is especially crucial during the holiday season where kids will not be in school to receive meals from their cafeteria. For every dollar raised, C.H.O.W. provides four meals in the community. Over 30,000 people live in poverty in our community and last year alone, C.H.O.W. provided 1.2 million meals for people in the community. This year, their goal was to provide 250,000 additional meals for members in the community from the walk’s proceeds. If you would like get involved in the community, you can register for the

Written By Aditi Roy

“Over 30,000 people live in poverty in our community and

last year alone, C.H.O.W. provided 1.2 million meals for people in the community.”

Halloween 13K Walk, which will raise money for Team HopeFull to fight Prader-Willi Syndrome on November 2nd at 9:30 a.m. at Union Endicott High School! B


Fl a s h b a c k sIts amazing how some Review artivles, like this one from 2006, are as true today as they were back then...

Written by Adam Smith

You’ve heard it before. It’s an old story. Some students pen an editorial or make a public statement to the effect that “Binghamton sucks.” Then cometh the howls from the student activists who scream that the real enemy is “student apathy” (but interestingly, don’t disagree with the assertion that Binghamton does in fact, well, suck.) It’s a tired dance, I agree. But let’s us examine it and come to some conclusion once and for all. Why does Binghamton “suck”? More appropriately, what does Binghamton seem to be lacking that gives us such a sense of permanent malaise? The answer is clear: spontaneity.

the parade of shapeless, unmanly, and slothful Long Island boys in sweaty, stained flip-flops in 20 degree weather flopping to class after just waking up from a poisonous mushroom binge. Or perhaps you forgot last night when you traveled downtown and noticed that most of the girls need to get it through their heads that the mere fact that they are wearing very little does not make them attractive. The thought that none of us want to see their freshman fifteen (or fifty) on grand display rolling over

night at 4pm after I’ve already rejected you!” But I digress…

In regards to spontaneity, Binghamton University lacks it. Many of us may already realize this when we criticize the administration for an unimaginative alcohol policy, or when we oppose the add/drop deadline. These fights have been raging for a few years now. They both have produced a wealth of crying and screaming, not to mention editorials, proclamations, and letters (all in vain), but neither of these issues seems to get at the heart of the matter. There is a fundamental governing philosophy at the highest levels of this university which

GRAY SKIES, BINGHAMTON LIES

Flashbacks: Gray Skies, Binghamton Lies

their beltline at the Rat while we guzzle pitchers of nameless beer never occurs to them. You know, the king of ugly that makes you want to scream “earth to downtown kissing-slut: Hunny, not even copious amounts of this nameless beer is gonna put me anywhere near under your sheets tonight! You may be wearing Gucci, Prada, and Coach, but the size of your ass has its own brand name—Mack truck! Why don’t you go show your rolls to the pizza delivery guy that delivers your dinner rolls every

will always ensure that all things fun, imaginative, and spontaneous are rather impossible. Quite simply—it’s not that Lois and Co. want us to suffer, it’s just that their policies make it impossible for us not to. Lois and Co. make every effort to stifle spontaneity on campus by placing obstacles all over the place. Ever wonder why there are empty shops in the New Union? No one in their right and sober mind would open there, that’s why. The University Union places so much burden on its tenants that profit,

There is nothing out of the ordinary about Binghamton University. We have a good enough reputation; students generally attend class and go out on weekends. Many of us form friendships that last a pretty long time. Ok, maybe we’re uglier than other campuses, maybe it snows a bunch every year, and maybe our professors are a bit wacky and unrefined. Most of us generally agree with all theses assertions, especially the ugly one. Don’t know what I’m talking about? Perhaps you haven’t noticed


and thus the normal execution of daily business, is impossible. “Profit” is a dirty word on this campus. This is so much so that you need a “contract” to do business. One of the commonly perceived villains on campus is Sodexho, our fine friends who serve us quality meats and veggies in numerous locations on campus. They seem to have cornered the market for symbols that represent why Binghamton sucks so much. The common image for Sodexho, at least among our more liberal friends on campus, is one of a low quality, corporate punk whose desire for our cash is unyielding and immoral. This is a ridiculous perception. Of course they want our cash, they are a business. Without cash they cannot operate. Whatever “evil” comes from their existence on campus is not wholly their fault, but can be blamed on the administration. Why? One word—

climate for growth, and then stand idly by while everyone complains about the businesses, but not the underlying problem. The problem is not the Sodexho people, or the M&T people, or the Coca-Cola people…it’s the Lois people. Now with this in mind, is it any wonder that our University Union is barren? It should come as no surprise if you’ve read to this point or if you have taken an economics class or two. The Union has so much red tape it makes the ghost of Che Guevara giggle like a giddy catholic schoolgirl on her way to be fondled by her groping public school boyfriend. According to the “rules,” the only for profit enterprise currently allowed in the Union is the barber. That is only because of history—back in Binghamton’s heyday there was a barber and a bar in the Union. Now that both are gone, the Union is full of prison

make more money and offer more choices for students. Anyone who truly cares about students and about their happiness would not deny them an environment full of choice in the building on campus that was built specifically to serve their whims. The only variable in this is Sodexho, who could rightly complain that this would be a violation of their contract. They have a monopoly granted to them, unfortunately. But the solution to that is simple as well. Renegotiate the contract. Don’t make them open and maintain dining halls they don’t want to, and let them charge fair market price for their product. Let Sodexho compete, and everyone wins.

In short, Binghamton University need not be a place only for snow lovers and non-happenings. But let’s be clear where the blame needs to be directed. It’s the policies of our campus administration that disallow fun, not anything else. BU could be a cool place if Lois tried harder. Or, more appropriately, tried less. It is often with the most utopian vision that our leaders render the most third-world results. A little more Laissez-faire, and a little less paternalism seems to be just what the doctor ordered. B

Flashbacks: Gray Skies, Binghamton Lies

“The Union has so much red tape it makes the ghost of Che Guevara giggle like a giddy catholic schoolgirl on her way to be fondled by her groping public school boyfriend.”

contracts.

Lois and Co. love to screw us through their exercise of negotiating contracts. When the bidding for food contracts began on campus a couple of years back, it was made plain by the administration that restrictions and requirements would be placed on whatever entity decided to be stupid enough to do business on our campus. First—they had to maintain and operate a dining hall in every community, regardless of whether it operated at a loss. Secondly, certain dining halls would have to remain open, even during vacation or times when there are few students on campus. These are rather extreme. No wonder Sodexho was the only business that bid on the contract. We should be thanking them, not vilifying them.

This self-destructive behavior follows a pattern for Lois and co. Binghamton’s administration loves to create a chilly

furniture and unshaven philosophy students constantly “discovering” themselves in the publication wing or that strange, smelly connection between the Old and New Union, perhaps. Either way, I think you get the point. It’s boring. It needs life.

What is the solution? Something close to “free trade” in the Union would help. The university can open the doors of the Union to competition. This would mean that we would no longer have to deal with the hassle of going off campus for food, or having it delivered by questionable characters in the dead of night. The administration’s opposition to this proposal is actually very odd. They would stand to benefit from the rent or lease fees and could wind up using that money to hire or retain quality instructors. In fact, it’s plausible that if this measure is taken, the Union could actually stay open longer, and


This Section of Dodd-Frank Actually Kills People

If you’re having trouble getting to sleep, I recommend reading the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer

Protection Act. You can think of this as the financial version of the Patriot Act — that is, a broad, ambiguous power sweep by the federal government in the aftermath of a crisis. Wonks and pundits can argue for days about the problems stemming from such a complicated bill, ranging from unenforceable “proprietary trading” laws to crude social engineering. Few would lose too much sleep over default swap regulations or the Volcker Rule.

We ought to be outraged, though, over a rarely-mentioned part of Dodd-Frank: Section 1502. This five-page-long monstrosity, designed to shut down the “conflict mineral” industry in the Congo, actually destroys the lives of the people that it is trying to help.

The story begins with metals inside the machines you’re probably reading this article with. Pretty much all consumer electronic products, medical devices, and hardware gadgetry contain “the three Ts”: tungsten, tin, and tantalum. To have all of these products we know and love, we need to do some serious importing with the help of our African friends.

The Democratic Republic of Congo is a huge player in the metals industry, but not without a cost. Millions of Congolese depend on the industry that brings in almost 15% of national income, but profits from mining feed into a violent civil war that has claimed more than five million lives. Mining sites, which are heavily concentrated in the eastern part of the country, are regularly extorted by violent militia groups.

But if metal money is feeding the payroll of violent psychopaths like

Sultani Makenga, then shouldn’t we just stop buying from the war zones? That’s been the thinking of groups like the Enough Project, which has encouraged companies to list their metal sources for years. The idea is that by consistently shaming companies like Nintendo with blood in their pockets, the transition will be made away from “conflict minerals.” Advocacy groups celebrated the passage of Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Bill, which requires companies purchasing these metals to file a report stating the sources. In practice, the complexity of this process is enough to dissuade companies from taking their business to Congo altogether. The 2009-2011 period saw a business exodus away from the war-torn country; local prices for the “three Ts” plunged as U.S. demand went down the drain.

With less profit available for thugs to

extort, you’d expect Congo to be getting far less violent. You’d be wrong. As it turns out, the conflict is considerably more complicated than the black-and-white picture offered to Congress by well-meaning activists. It’s true that a lucrative funding source for militia groups is drying, but this violently alters the behavior of some of the biggest thugs out there.

Think like famous mob men Vito Corleone or John Gotti for a minute. An

industry or neighborhood solidly under “mafia” control with a profitable future needs to be kept peaceful, otherwise that profit would dry up. Any investment you make can’t be bloodied up too much, or it won’t be of use to you in the future. If a mineral mining site you “own” through extortion will be of little value in the future, you are free to violently bleed it dry and walk away. This is called “scavenger” behavior, and researchers Parker and Vadheim document a spike in violent behavior toward workers at these mining sites after the Dodd-Frank virtual ban was enacted.

Miners that survive with limbs and lives intact see their paychecks vanish, as demand for their product rapidly deteriorates. For men and boys alike, what other response is there but to join the local militia? As much as one fifth of the country lives off metal revenue; taking up arms is the alternative.

Legislators and activists only have the best intentions, but they’re unintentionally doing the work of the devil. Millions of Congolese have lost their only source of income, and have suffered dearly. Meanwhile, new militia groups are emerging and an increasing proportion of violence is directed toward civilians. We can save more mundane debates about Dodd-Frank for another day, but Section 1502 needs to go. B

Written by By Ross Marchand, also published in PolicyMic

“This five page long monstrosity, designed to shut down the “conflict

mineral” industry in the Congo, actually destroys the lives of the people that it is trying to help.”

This Section of Dodd-Frank Actually Kills People


We know you love the Binghamton Review,

but did you know that the Binghamton Review needs YOU??

Email [email protected] to get involved.It’s that easy.

The Binghamton Review always wants new writers, contributors, and editorial and production staff.

Come join the ranks of Binghamton’s premier news and opinion outlet.

November 2013 Binghamton Review

Documents

Transcript of November 2013 Binghamton Review